Quashed

M/S.St Alphonsa Timber v. the Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Kerala HC24 Feb 2016WP(C)/7083/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order by the Income Tax Commissioner directing deposit of tax amount as a condition for stay against recovery. The High Court quashed the order due to lack of reasoning by the authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Ext.P13 quashed; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider and pass fresh orders within one month after hearing petitioner.

M/S.St Alphonsa Timber Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 7083 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S. ST. ALPHONSA TIMBER & TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED., KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST-682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JESSY THOMAS.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 018.

¶11

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, 1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 036.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).No. 7083 of 2016 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014.

¶19

P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014.

¶20

P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014.

¶21

P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014.

¶22

P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014.

¶23

P6 : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P1.

¶24

P6(A) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P2.

¶25

P6(B) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P3.

¶26

P6(C) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P4.

¶27

P6(D) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P5.

¶28

P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015.

¶29

P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015.

¶30

P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015.

¶31

P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.21.4.2015.

¶32

P11 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015.

¶33

P12 : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBITS P6 APPEAL.

¶34

P12(A): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (A) APPEAL.

¶35

P12(B): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (B) APPEAL.

¶36

P12(C) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (C) APPEAL.

¶37

P12(D) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (D) APPEAL.

¶38

P13 : COPY OF THE COMBINED STAY ORDER DTD. 5.2.2016 ISSUESD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No.7083 of 2016

¶46

- - - - Dated this the 24^th day of February 2016

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Against Exts.P1 to P5 Assessment orders, petitioner preferred Ext.P6 series of appeals before the 2^nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P12 series of stay petitions. The 2^nd respondent has now passed Ext.P13 order on the stay petitions directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.31,84,508/- as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Exts.P1 to P5 assessment orders.

¶49

In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said conditional order of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the 2^nd respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order.

¶50

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶51

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case

¶52

W.P.(c).No.7083 of 2016

¶53

: 2 :

¶54

and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶55

(i) In Ext.P13 order, the 2^nd respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715 that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay.

¶56

(ii) Ext.P13 order is quashed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petitions, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner.

¶57

(iii) Recovery steps, if any, initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶60

sm/

M/S.St Alphonsa Timber v. the Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.St Alphonsa Timber v. the Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saidali Vs the Manager

Rajesh K Vs the Authorized Officer, Sindicate Bank Ltd.

M/S. Surya Catering Service Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Salkumar.J Vs the Authorized Officer

Shaju Kulangara Furniture Vs Intelligence Officer

Sunilkumar Vs the Authorized Officer/General Manager